thanks but no thanks

I hate compliments that are predicated on the suckiness of somebody else. "You're so blah-blah-blah, unlike those other people who are yadda-yadda-yadda." It's a retarded way to compliment people, combining an insult with something supposedly good.

I've been thinking about this because in the past several months I've received this sort of compliment several times. The scenario usually goes something like this:

Me, I'm out with Nathaniel during the middle of the work week, minding my own business, perhaps talking to him, perhaps just holding him. Enter, stage right, the Dread Complimenter.

DC: What a cute baby! [Nathaniel invariably smiles on cue at this point. He is a born flirt.]

DC: And so friendly and sweet!

Up to this point I very much enjoy these interactions, and if they stop at this point, it makes my day. These are Wonderful Complimenters, not Dread Complimenters. Most people have the sense to stop here. However, for those that don't, the scene continues.

DC: You stay home with him, right?

Me: Yes. [I feel no need to share my employment/school situation with strangers who accost me, and my answer is true.]

DC: Well, you're obviously a good mother! Good for you for staying home with him, unlike those working mothers.

Or something like that. The format of the conversation can vary; the message never does. I'm a good mother because I am not at work. Period, end of conversation.

The first few times this happened I didn't know what to say. Sleep-deprived and marshaling post-birth hormones, I nodded mutely, unable to muster up the energy to protest narrow-minded bigotry.

Lately, though, I have begun to fight back. I hate this sort of compliment. For one thing, it insults many women whom I know are excellent mothers. It insults my own wonderful mother, something I will not abide by.

But for another thing, it could turn so easily on me. Will I automatically stop being a good mother when I work for my law firm this summer? Do I get points subtracted from my Good Mother score because it is work that I both sought out and that I am excited about? What about next year, when I'm in school? Do I get points added because my mother will be doing a lot of our childcare, thus keeping it in the family, which is societally approved? Will the fact that we are looking for part-time daycare because we think the experience would be good for Nathaniel cause the Dread Complimenter to curl up in a twitchy, judgmental ball?

So I've stopped nodding quietly. Instead I pull myself up to my full height and look the Dread Complimenter squarely in the eye. I am physically imposing when I do this, and I use it.

"I'm going back to work this summer." I state the facts. If I'm feeling particularly uppity, I note that I was in full-time childcare starting at six weeks.

Faced with a hairy maternal eyeball, an obviously happy child, and the embarrassing realization that he just insulted my own mother, the Dread Complimenter usually shrinks away. "Uh, I mean, um, yeah, I guess if you HAVE to work, that's okay. Um, yeah, I have to go."

I grit my teeth and smile. Usually, my sweet boy smiles at the same time.

"Thanks," I say. "I am a very lucky woman."

Comments

[suzanne]

I am also a momma who is in law school, but my kids are much older (7 and 8). I just had a similar conversation the other day, with another parent of elementary aged children. she was giving me the run-down on the prospective teachers that both my children may have next year, and about one of them, she said, "but now that she's had her baby, i don't know *what* kind of teacher she'll be, i mean, who can really do a good job teaching with a one year old at home?" I pointed out to her that many people continue to do a good job once they have children. that many people go back to work, and many people do it well. i don't think she was very pleased with me. oh well.

[fran]

...of course when the DC asks if you stay home with him, you could respond, 'Only on days when I'm too hungover to go to work, like today', or 'Clearly no, as you can see we're not at home now'.
I firmly believe in answering rude/ignorant questions with rude/ignorant answers. The look on the face of the DC might just bring a giggle or 3.

[Kelly]

OK, Fran's suggested retort about the hangover is priceless.

Good for you for stating the facts. As you said, it's really not any of DC' business, but I for one appreciate that you stand up for your mother, yourself, and other working mothers everywhere.

It's tough to balance family and work. Both my parents worked when I was young. There were pros and cons to that situation, as there is to every scenario. I know some women who would likely go CRAZY - literally - if they had to stay home full time with their child or children. I would quite possibly fall into this category but as I've never had the luxury to contemplate staying home with my daughter, I don't really know for sure.

And I love that Nathaniel seems to be on the same page with your responses, smiling as if on cue!

[Milo]

Hi. I'm just shamelessly promoting my own weblog. It's all about me and how law school is turning me into an arrogant asshole. http://mcvthree.home.comcast.net

Let me know if you want to trade links!

[transmogriflaw]

Fran, thanks for the laugh, that's a fantastic idea.

It is tough balancing family and work, no matter what your circumstances. It's also tough being a stay-at-home mom. I wish that the DCs would recognize on their own that there are good parents of all stripes, but if I have to stand up and fight, I will.

Milo - I'll check your blog out.

[Listless Lawyer]

It seems to me that the ideal situation for a child is to have both parents at home, thinking about and tending to his/her needs 24/7. That, of course, isn't necessary to be a good mother or father, nor is it even possible (somebody has to bring in the money). But it is ideal.

So somebody gets a job. It can be either the mother or the father. But once the financial needs are taken care of, then it seems to me that the ideal situation is for one of the parents to be at home full-time. It's helpful for a child to know that one of his parents will always be there for him/her, no matter what time of day or night it is. It's also helpful for a child to have one parent that is just watching out for him/her, without being distracted by the emotional demands of work. That parent can be either the mother or the father, and it's not essential, and you *can* be a good parent without it, but it is ideal.

Does anyone really dispute this? Are there really people who hold on to the old feminist lie that women can "have it all"? Nobody can have it all, male or female, because life is hard and inconvenient and you have to make difficult choices. There's no escaping that fact, superwoman or not.

"Long hours at work have been linked to children’s behavior problems and are tied to poor parenting behavior. For example, a study found that fathers who worked long hours and felt overloaded were less accepting and had less positive relationships with their children."

transmogriflaw, I don't know whether your husband stays at home or not. It frankly doesn't matter to me. Whatever your arrangement, I'm sure you're making it work; the main thing is love and motivation, which you obviously have. So I hope that this is taken in the spirit in which it is intended: as just another viewpoint in the conversation that you started. But in my opinion, when two people have a child, one of them ought to try and stay home full time, if possible. I don't think that's "bigotry"; I think it's a sensible evaluation of the costs and benefits to the child.

[Listless Lawyer]

Oh, and transmogriflaw, maybe you of all people will understand what I am saying. Engineering, of whatever kind, is after all fundamentally about trade-offs. You can't optimize for everything.

[Denise]

I disagree with Listless in that while it may (or may not, I don't know how we KNOW how other models work over time) be in the best interests of the child it presumes that one person's needs outweigh another's. I do actually think that quality is much more important than quantity. Children do need to know that they are loved and that they are safe and provided for. I think you can do that without having one parent be stay-at-home. It presents a bigger burden on both parents, certainly, but it seems to me that you CAN have it all. I guess I've just know too many latch-key kids or day-care kids who have grown up as loving, bright well-adjusted people to believe that having a stay at home parent is the necessary ideal.

[Kelly]

Listless began, "It seems to me that the ideal situation for a child is to have both parents at home, thinking about and tending to his/her needs 24/7. That, of course, isn't necessary to be a good mother or father, nor is it even possible (somebody has to bring in the money). But it is ideal."

I'm guessing this was as a sort of baseline or starting point for going on to say that in reality at least 1 parent has to work but they should try to keep the other at home to care for the child. I have to disagree with the 'ideal' as a baseline, though.

No way is having 2 mature adults tending to the needs of 1 child 24/7 a good idea. Children need to be loved, to be cared for, to feel safe. But they also need to realize - in a loving but realistic manner - that they are not the center of the universe (the center of their parents' lives, yes, of the world, no).

A child raised by 2 parents who have no other responsibilities, goals, duties, contribution to society than to dote on that child is a person who will eventually grow up and have an extremely difficult time interacting with the world around him.

[transmogriflaw]

Listless, I always welcome polite debate and I appreciate your comments. I am working on a post that will address your comments in a larger space than I have here.

However, I wanted to say one thing to begin with: I fundamentally disagree with your description of an ideal situation for a child: 2 parents home thinking and tending to the needs of the child 24/7. I did childcare for years (another upcoming post on that) and one of the conclusions I reached is that the kids who had their needs catered to by doting adults 24/7 are not well prepared for the larger world.

One of the most troubled kids I babysat was a child who had not only a stay-at-home mom but also a stay-at-home grandmother in the same house. His every need was anticipated, his every want granted, and he was an absolute horror. I was one of the few babysitters they could find, and it's mostly because I ignored his temper tantrums when he threw them because I refused to do something he wanted. Interestingly, I was also his favorite babysitter. He used to ask his parents to go out so I could come by. My theory was that he badly needed a little independence and when I ignored him, I gave it to him.

I hold different opinions than you do. What is clear to you is not at all clear to me, especially given that our baseline ideals aren't at all the same. But I'll write more on that later.

[Todd Crowe]

I think that most of the discussion here has missed the mark, including to some extent the original blog posting. Denise was closest to the mark when she said, "quality is much more important than quantity". Certainly, one hour of time spent interacting with a loving and thoughtful parent is better for a child than four hours of time spent interacting with an abusive parent. To say, however, that one person's needs don't outweigh another's does miss the mark. Ableit, this comment was made in the context of the parents, but there is one person who's needs outweight either of the parent's: the child.

Parent's have a responsibility to do the best job they can to raise their children. Parent's are also people with their own strengths and weaknesses, though. Some people are better suited toward parenting than others. It may be in the best interest of a child for one (or even both) of their parents to dedicate themselves to the child's upbringing. On the other hand, it may be better for the child to interact with other adults (and children) outside the family.

The question we should ask ourselves as parents (or, even better, before we become parents) is how suited are we to being parents? Is it in the best interest of our children to be raised and taught exclusively by us? Would it be better if another family member, daycare provider, school, or religious institution provided some of the care and education?

I agree that DC's are not flattering anyone with their "compliments." Such individuals are implicitly assuming that a stay-at-home mother or father is automatically a good mother or father (and one that works is automatically a bad one). Plainly, that is not always the case.

[transmogriflaw]

I agree that the problem with the compliments and some of what we've seen written here is that they all assume a one-size-fits-all view of the world. This is, to an extent, also true of my reply: just because I feel that children are not best served by having two doting adults around 24/7 does not mean that there aren't instances where that is the perfect situation for the family.

In the end you can only answer for your own family. Life is probably better that way anyhow. Frankly, those of us who spend our time worrying about this are probably not the parents that we should be worried about.